$520,000 loan secured by 5 properties. 2 have been determined to be in a flood zone.
Borrower has insurance on the 2 properties plus one other property that was not determined to be in a flood zone.
The three insurances total is more than adequate for coverage purposes.
The two insurances total on the properties determined to be in a flood zone is not adequate.
Can I bring in the third insurance on the property not determined to be in a flood zone and add it to my total?
My thought is no. I would love to hear what others might think though.

I would agree with you. The coverage amount needs to be adequate on the properties determined to be in a flood zone.

Can I bring in the third insurance on the property not determined to be in a flood zone and add it to my total?

No. The minimum required coverage is the lesser of the following:

Insurable value of the property or properties located in the SFHA.

The outstanding principal balance of the loan or loans secured by the property or properties located in the SFHA.

The maximum available for the property type or types located in the SFHA.


The property located outside the SFHA is not a contributing factor in determining the minimum coverage.

I agree with Dan and Cracked (and you). It's great that they have it, but you can't consider the extra property in the calculation.